I think everyone has always understood that the distribution of wealth has been a horrible weight looking over the world, but the Oxfam Study opened my eyes to the idea of home truly massive that gap between the have and the have-nots truly is.  The study finds that by next year the richest one percent will control more than half of the world’s total wealth.  It goes on to describe an even more shocking detail: that the eighty wealthiest people own $1.9 trillion, which is equivalent to the cumulative wealth of the 3.5 billion individuals on the bottom half of the income scale! That is insane! Yet, even though many of these wealthy individuals put their money back into the community to create parks, these actions are not as public oriented as they seem.  In “The Billionaire’s Park,” David Callahan explains how the investment of individuals like Mr. Diller into seemingly public spaces , are in more affluent places and developed in a style that leans more towards the interest of the wealthy.  Essentially this philanthropy is taking away the voice of the public center when it comes to the question of what to do with public space.  This idea is further supported in “OWS: The Part of Wall Street Meets Its Nemesis”, which paints the story of Occupy Wall Street and the end that came to it by the idea that the government decides which space is public and allowed to be occupied.  In a space that is obviously public, it seems that the mass public, those who represent the 99%, are not allowed to take up space in that area because they do not fit the aesthetic off the private sector. So what is it that we, as the 99%, have to do to regain our voices in how to develop public space, a small construct that will hopefully lead to strengthening our voices in other political outlets? We must change the system that equates money with power.  But then, how do we do that?

The following statement is a real eye-opener: “The 80 wealthiest people in the world altogether own $1.9 trillion […] nearly the same amount shared by the 3.5 billion people who occupy the bottom half of the world’s income scale.” This fact is absolutely mind boggling, and how it could even be true is a whole different story. To think that most of the world’s wealth is held by only 80 people is utterly insane. This shift to private money holders is becoming apparent because there has been a shift from public funding to private funding for various projects. For example, the High Line in NYC is a park that was mainly funded by private donors. Its really beautiful, and when I went to visit the park, I actually did notice that the only types of people visiting the park were tourists, runners, or cyclers who lived near by. It’s a great park and a wonderful way to use the money that the wealthy have, but there is always a better use for excess money.

Question: Is there any hope for the wealth to be distributed among the lower income population, or are the “rich just going to get richer and the poor, poorer.”?

The information presented in these articles is of great concern to our society, and are representative of many of the social structures that our generation has come to loathe. It is unfortunate to see the growing influence of the rich in the politics of this country, and how money is in fact a more powerful force than the government in charge of representing the will of the people. The idea that the development of public spaces, whose very name is indicative of it role as a physical extensions of the people’s common will, is to be controlled by those with the wealth for development seems to be a corruption of the very concept. How to combat this development is another question, as we are witness to the very short-lived effects of the Occupy movement, although the powerful language displayed in the reading “Chapter 7, “#OWS: The Party of Wall Street Meets its Nemesis” serves as a representation of the impassioned frustration we are beginning to see as a result of these negative shifts. What we haven’t seen is concrete steps taken in order to reverse these steps. There need to be systems put in place in order to separate purchasing power from political and social influence.

Economic rewards are far more lopsided in the US than in European countries, this inequality drives American poverty rates. In sociology the champagne glass distribution theory of inequality, is used to explain the unequal global distribution of income. 925 million people are hungry in the world, 1 billion people do not have access to clean drinking water, and 2.3 million children die from preventable diseases. It really says something if 1% of the population control half of global wealth. It only adds to the issue if the 1% of the population only uses their money for leisure and entertainment. There should be a limit to how much a person could own; imagine owning $1.9 trillion, at some point all your needs and desires would have been met and the rest of the money would have been redundant. The rest of that money could be allocated for better services, towards the needy, homeless, and the poor. Instead billionaires are spending their money on leisure activities like building a billionaire park that will only have use for tourists, instead of using them on the community. Is there a way to solve the global inequality problem?

I agree with Nicole, this week’s readings are perfectly timed. Beginning with Party of Wall Street Meets it’s Nemesis, the author holds a negative point of view and claimed that only the wealthy have power and control of politics. That was further proved in the other readings, especially in Patricia Cohen’s New York Times article when she stated that 80 wealthy people own more than 3.5 regular people do. This showed the severity of the issue. The New York Times article by Callahan, on the other hand, did not seem as important. I failed to see why investing into a park would have such a negative impact. After all, it is their money and they may invest it as they please. However, the last reading by Cindi Katz showed that there are far more important issues out there that are being ignored. Also, something as small as investing in a park can give the wealthy more control than imagined. This leads me to wonder is the only way to have a voice is to have a “collective power of bodies in a public space” which Party of Wall Street Meets it’s Nemesis suggests is the most effective instrument of opposition.

Is there really anything we can do to control how and where the wealthy invest their money?

The article “Oxfam study finds richest 1% is likely to control half of global wealth by 2016” shows a wide-spread concern focused primarily on the gap that is ever-increasing between the extremely rich and the painstakingly poor of the world. This article impresses me in showing how the richest percentage of the world can easily control an important and vital amount of money in the economic world. For instance, the connections and the amounts of investments that can be summed up by these people can easily determine the future of many corporations as well as international multi-millionaire businesses. Other than believing this as an inevitable end that will happen, the wealth that is just gathered in such few hands, can be redistributed at a much widespread rate. In addition, this article also begins to make you think of several possibilities that will eventually lead to a much more desired outcome, for example heavier taxes for the rich, much more money limitations and a lot more taxes for trivial activities that can only be afforded by the richest people of the world. Yet on the flipside, the immensity of such a project will never be a one-night job so what do you think? What improvements or ideas do you have that will limit the rich and help the poor without endangering or boosting the middle class of the world?

It’s not a surprise to me that the Oxfam study revealed an increase in the likelihood of the wealthy controlling half of the global wealth. For one, we live in an increasingly global world in which country lines blur in the realm of economics; for two, the disparity between the upper and lower class is ever-increasing and the difference in wages is dramatic. It reminds me of the semi-crazed assertion that thirteen families control the world through money power that, though a bit conspiratorial for my taste, holds more weight than I’d like to admit. The issue brought up in all of these posts is that of the large disparity between the wealth of the rich and that of the poor, and unfortunately none seem to present a viable option for eradicating this. As “The Party of Wall Street Meets Its Nemesis” puts it: “The struggle is global as well as local in nature.” Is there a way to battle and shrink this wage gap on a local scale that will then affect on a larger one?

This week’s readings, especially the New York times article on the Oxfam study, focus on the widening gap in wealth distribution between the rich and the poor. If one percent of the people will control half of the world’s wealth, the question of why capitalism is still seen as the preferred and dominant economic system is brought to light. When the wealthy control this much of the total money on the planet, there exists the need to write articles like the one on the Billionaires’ Park. Philanthropic acts and charity are acts that are done at the mercy of those who have the financial means to do so. Fixing parks and other public functions are no longer done when they need to be, but rather, when the money for doing so becomes available. This is not to say that ideal systems like communism would work, for we do not exist in an entirely capitalistic society either. The issue then becomes a matter of distributing wealth in the fairest way without causing violent protest (ie: if we just created a mandate to ensure that every person in the USA has only 2,000 dollars to spend every month–something radical like that).

Question: In what way can we best resolve this wealth gap (smoothly and peacefully)? Is such a proposal even possible?

There’s a line near the opening of Callahan’s article this week which explains how a park funded by a billionaire is “just a short walk from his office in Chelsea.” This line has a strong implication which I feel the article overlooks to a degree. Callahan seems accepting of this and other such works as acts of philanthropy, despite the clear ways that they directly benefit the “philanthropist” performing the act. The park built by Barry Diller can just as easily be seen as a personal luxury instead of a public service, especially considering its location in an affluent neighborhood. It’s worrying that wealthy populations are spending so much time just looking out for themselves, even in their charitable acts.

This grows even more worrying when one considers the “rich get richer” numbers which are brought up in Cohen’s article. Wealthy people already enjoy a wide array of luxuries and amenities with no immediate fear of losing them, and it’s appalling that they would still be so greedy as to try expanding that array. I do wonder if the growing income gap is a result of this greed (as opposed to a way to dis-incentivize greed), but I still believe that there should be a balance between self-serving behavior and looking out for those less fortunate.

Income inequality is a huge problem in America. Part of the reason why it has become such a huge problem is because money is power. Those few very wealthy, though a small percentage of Americans, are not willing to give up their money or their power for the sake of the common good. And paradoxically, they have the wealth and power to be able to not give up their wealth power.

I approach this topic with a pessimistic view. Occupy Wall Street was a largely unsuccessful movement because it the root of the problem is our entire economic system, wherein the collection of wealth is the ultimate goal. Though admirable, social and political protests can do little to tackle this dilemma that we have created for ourselves.

What we need is political action, reverse Reganomics. Tax the wealthy and increase the middle, working, and lower classes. Rather than protests, our energy would be put to better use in campaigning and voting for those who could put real policy into action. I simply ask why so little has yet been done to address this current crisis.